The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a
huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea." (Revelation 8:8, NIV)

In 1998, Touchstone Pictures released Armaggedon, the
most recent in a premillenial barrage of films focused on the end of the world.The film included a trendy Hollywood cast, headlined by Bruce Willis, Billy
Bob Thornton, and Ben Affleck, and was directed by Michael Bay, whose previous
film credits included the 1996 top ten hit, The Rock. Although Armageddon
received nods from the Academy of Motion Pictures for Best Effects (Sound
Effects Editing and Visual Effects), Best Music (Song), and Best Sound, film
critics were not so enthusiastic. On average, Armageddon received 1Ĺ to
two stars. The American public, on the other hand, made Armageddon the
second most profitable film of 1998, exceeding its "sister" film, Deep
Impact, whose similar storyline included an equally fashionable cast of
characters, by over $60 million. In the end, Armageddon raked in over
$201 million.

The story begins as an amateur astronomer detects an asteroid
"the size of Texas" a mere 18 days before its collision with earth. In
desperation, NASA recruits and trains a team of expert deep-core drillers, led
by Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis), to accompany a team of astronauts into space.
Their goal is to land on the surface of the asteroid, plant nuclear bombs within
its core, and detonate them remotely. The astronauts are charged with splitting
the asteroid into two pieces before it reaches "zero barrier" so that
it will conveniently bypass Earth.

Harryís team of roughnecks spends less than a
week-and-a-half training for space under the intense scrutiny of hypercritical
government officials. Six days before the asteroid is scheduled to collide with
the Earth, the mission begins. Everything that can go wrong in space does: one
of the shuttles crashes on the face the asteroid, while the other shuttle
overshoots its landing area; miscommunication with NASA nearly results in
detonating the bomb before the team has finished drilling. Nevertheless, the
team miraculously reaches target depth only a few minutes before the asteroid
reaches zero barrier. However, because the remote signal was destroyed during an
unpredictable mishap on the asteroidís surface, someone must be left behind to
manually detonate the bomb. In a final act of heroism, Harry arranges to be the
last one left. As the space shuttle flies away, Harry pushes the button, saving
the earth but sacrificing himself. On earth, humanity rejoices as its
destruction has been circumvented.

Background of the film

Armageddon was not created as a whimsical fantasy of
Hollywood masterminds. In fact, its basic premise stems from a distinct
historical event. In 1994, for the first time in the history of humankind,
scientists were able to witness in detail the collision of two solar system
bodies. Having circled Jupiter in an enclosing elliptical pattern for what
scientists speculate to be hundreds ofyears, comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was
wrenched out of its orbit by Jupiterís gravity and into a collision course
with the planetís dense atmosphere. This collision produced "bubble[s] of
superheated gas that blazed with 50 times the infrared luminosity of the entire
planet, briefly blinding some telescopes." Comet fragments pounded Jupiter
at an estimated speed of 60 kilometers per second (134,000 miles an hour), and
although the largest fragments measured no more than 700 meters in diameter,
they left scars on Jupiterís atmosphere that were larger than the size of the
earth. The fireworks from this event were so spectacular that "even little
telescopes dug out of dusty attics for the occasion caught a glimpse of
them." In the wake of this cosmic event, Armageddon found its roots.

Undoubtedly present in the minds of Armageddonís
filmmakers was international anxiety over the end of the millennium. With the
year 2000 rapidly approaching, countless predictions about its implications on
life as humans knew it had been made. Preparations for the coming of the new
millennium included stock piling food, building bunkers, and extensive
technological precautions. In light of these extreme measures, Armageddon tapped
into the collective anxiety of the time regarding not simply the end of the
world but also the uncertainty of the future. Armageddon also portrayed
the spectacular triumph of humans over and against all odds in the face of
certain destruction. More often than not, the film proved to be a cathartic
experience for moviegoers, who left feeling hopeful.

So What?

As stated above, in the eyes of film critics Armageddon was
among the lowest-rated movies of 1998. However, in the United States, Armageddon
raked in over $201 million and became the second-highest grossing movie of
the year. Worldwide, the film grossed over $553 million, making it the 13th
highest grossing movie of all time, preceded only by such classics as Star
Wars and E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial.Clearly, Armageddon
tapped the worldís collective imagination and succeeded as a popular
representation of human victory over the end of the world. Thus, Armageddonís
indisputable success points to its importance as more than simply entertainment.

One might conclude that Armageddonís filmmakers knew
the right formula for success. However, Armageddonís subject matteris
more than textbook science fiction. For many years, cosmologists have theorized
about the eventual dissipation or collapse of our universe. Some have posited
that expanding heat from our sun will envelope the earth. In the case of
asteroids and comets, scientists estimate that, although comets capable of
causing mass extinction come along only once every 100 million years or so,
smaller asteroids and comets with similar destructive power bypass earth
frequently. For instance, in 1989 an asteroid one-quarter mile wide came within
400,000 miles of Earth. Scientists estimated that Earth and the asteroid Ė
weighing 50 million tons and traveling at 46,000 kilometers per hour - had
passed the same point in space just six hours apart. The content of Armageddon,
then, rehearses a scientific probability, though in fantastical proportions.
Therefore, Armageddonís treatment of the end of the world by cosmic
catastrophe is timely.

For Christians, knowledge of cosmology proves problematic. A
God-World relation implies that things will work out in the end, and cosmic
catastrophe seems antithetical to our beliefs in divine love and benevolence.
Certainly, God is not careless about Godís creation! Traditionally, Christians
have held onto the view that God is in control of the worldís end. The New
Testament book of Revelation reveals the early Christian conviction that God is
in control of history, regardless of appearances. For centuries, Christians had
no reason to doubt Godís sole significance in determining the eschaton;
cultural influences of the times did not contradict what people believed due to
their religious convictions. With the advent of the Age of Enlightenment,
however, Christians found themselves challenged by a new understanding of
science and its affects on their traditional beliefs.

New discoveries in scientific arenas led some Christians to
hold more tightly to their traditional views of God, while others explored the
wealth of new information that oftentimes challenged these views. Knowledge of
the ways of the world provided explanations for some questions but also raised
larger questions of Godís relationship to the world. Clearly, since the time
of the Enlightenment there has been no ceasing to the discovery of new
scientific theories and methods. Additionally, humanityís interest in
religiously-based understandings of this world have also increased. Dialogues
regarding scientific and religious understandings of the end of the world have
been most controversial. More often that not, the question that ends these
conversations is the same question that began this study: "What is Godís
purpose for the world if the world is going to end anyway?"

Two contemporary theologians who have grappled with the
eschatological tension that developed after Christianity experienced the
Enlightenment are JŁrgen Moltmann and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki. Each of these
theologians claims strong ties to the Christian tradition but also embraces the
implications of modern discoveries. Suchocki and Moltmann represent two
differing approaches to the fusion of cosmic and religious eschatology; their
ideas are explored here.

JŁrgen Moltmann

JŁrgen Moltmann is best known for restoring eschatology to a
prominent place within Christian theology. In the wake of nineteenth century
optimism, the Christian hope of a "new heavens and a new earth" had
been declared obsolete, as humanity was already progressing toward utopia,
without further need of help from God. However, two world wars challenged
modernityís view of the progression of history toward its
"fulfillment." No longer did we perceive that humanity would
infinitely advance toward perfection. Humankind now had to account for evil and
the possibility of global destruction at its own hands.

It was Moltmannís experience as a prisoner of war during
World War II that led him tospeak so decisively about the Christian
hope. Much like Victor Frankl in Manís Search for Meaning, Moltmann
realized that hope for the future was what separated the people who survived
those dark years from the ones who did not. A new convert to Christianity,
Moltmann found "an inward drive, a longing which provided the impetus to
hope." During that time, Moltmann also found the God who could break
through the power of history to "give hope for the oppressed and
suffering."

Although Moltmannís theology is infused with eschatological
overtones, his primary thoughts on eschatology are included in Theology of
Hope (1964) and The Coming of God (1995). In essence, Moltmannís
eschatology recovers Christís resurrection as the paradigm for understanding
both our individual and collective futures. This recovery places hope as
beginning with the reality of Christís death and resurrection. Christís
resurrection signaled the "future of the new creation of all things"
as having "already begun in the midst of this dying and transitory
world." In other words, in Christ we have a model for Godís intentions.
In Christ, the eschaton has already begun.

Moltmann also places hope squarely in Godís ability Ė and
intention - to transform the entire created order and share in eternal life with
them. Godís benevolence toward Godís creation is all-encompassing, willing
that nothing should be left out. For this reason, Richard Bauckham characterizes
Moltmannís eschatology as being both integrative and redemptive. Because of
Jesus Christ, "resurrection has become the universal Ďlawí for
creation." According to Moltmann, "when God, the creator of all
things, arrives at their redemption, all the things that have been separated and
isolated, forsaken and lost, will be sought, gathered up, and rescued from the
abyss of nothingness."

Traditional Christian apocalyptic asserts that in the
creation of the new heavens and new earth, the old will be annihilated. Moltmann
rejects this view. Instead, Moltmann insists that just as the earth and heavens
were originally created ex nihilo, the new heavens and the new earth will
be created ex vetere, or out of the old. "As a Creator who is
faithful to his creation," God transforms everything. Nothing is wasted,
and nothing is lost. This includes time, history, and all who have died.

A new beginning presupposes an end. This is why Moltmann is
helpful in interpreting the ultimate significance of cosmic events in Godís
overall purpose for the world. If an end is inevitable, how can we make sense of
Godís purposes for this world? Moltmann does not guarantee us that the world
will not end; instead, he assures us that whatever may become of this world, God
will not leave us alone. Moltmann reassures us that there is a greater future
for our world than either human optimism or cosmic eschatology will allow.

Astrophysicist William R. Stoeger, S.J., acknowledges the
challenge that science and technology present to Christianity. For Stoeger,
science is a search for truth, and to deny scientific discoveries is not an
option. However, Stoeger allows for another alternative:

that although the human species, life, the earth, the
sun, and the universe will end, that end is not ultimate but somehow leads
to a fuller, transformed reality, to which the natural sciences provide no
access, and to which our human experience give us only obscure, but
nevertheless real, intimations and indications."

We do not know that the world will not end catastrophically.
In fact, we will more likely be victims of natural disaster, nuclear war,
ecological crisis, or famine than any of the cosmic catastrophes that have been
discussed in this paper. However, that is not the final word, according to
Moltmann. Neither death nor destruction is ultimate; only God is ultimate. The
faithfulness of our Creator means that annihilation is not really a possibility.
As Moltmann says, "Eschatology is not about the worldís happy endÖNo
one can assure us that the worst will not happen. We can only trust that even
the end of the world hides a new beginning if we trust the God who calls into
being the things that are not, and out of death creates new life."

Eschatology

A Theological Analysis Using the Work of Marjorie Hewitt
Suchocki

It is not uncommon to hear Christians saying, "Since I
have no control over the end of the world, then why should I even care about
it?" From non-believers we hear, "Whatís God going to do about an
event that God has no control over? Itís all about science anyway." It
should be noted here that for non-believers, there is no reason even to consider
God as a part of the eschaton since the end of the world is, in their view, out
of Godís control. For believers, however, the importance of Godís reign must
be questioned when the end of the world is considered. Thus, the question of the
end of the world is complex, as it affects both believers and non-believers.

Essentially, there are three scenarios that describe the end
of the world. In one case, the end of the world will come by way of a cosmic
event, and human existence as we know it will cease forever. In the second case,
the end of the world will come, and humanity will find itself in an entirely
different world Ė there will be a world beyond this world. The third case is
the view of a few process theologians who claim that the end of the world will
never come and that the world is in a continual state of flux and transition,
never reaching an end but always evolving. In the following analysis, a process
theology approach to eschatology is explored using the work of Marjorie Hewitt
Suchocki.

In the introduction to her work, The End of Evil,
Suchocki writes, "When finitude is the primary problem, then existence is
its own reason for evil, and all resolutions to evil in history are but partial
triumphs against the greater tragedy of timeÖ When finite existence is viewed
as created existence, then the problems for theology move into theodicy, or the
justification of God in the face of unnecessary evil in creation" (2).
Here, Suchocki presents a new approach to dealing with the reality of evil in
the world and the eschaton in a theological way. She also writes:

The thesis of this work is that the contemporary era
is one in which the notion of finitude is fundamental to the problem of
evil Ė not to the exclusion of freedom, but as setting parameters that
necessarily restrict the exercise of freedomÖ Evil rooted in a wayward
will may be balanced eschatologically by a judgment that divides
eternally, but evil rooted in finitude must be met with an eschatology
of some ultimate reconciliation of all things (2).

In this view, Suchocki embraces an idea about the eschaton
that allows for people to believe wholeheartedly in the power and reign of God
while not letting go of the natural human need to have a purpose in this world.
In another of Suchockiís works, God Christ Church, she suggests,
"How we develop our notions of eschatology must now depend greatly upon how
we answer [the] question ĎWhat did Jesus mean by the reign of God?í"
(184). Clearly, Suchocki takes an innovative approach to the problem of evil,
the reign of God, and their relationship to eschatology.

It could be that the solution to the problem of "Why is
Godís purpose important if the world is going to end anyway?" requires a
reframing of theological ideas similar to Suchockiís. What if Godís purpose
for humanity is not even comprehensible to humanity? What if Godís plan for us
is beyond what we can conceive? What if this world is never ending? If God has a
plan that is Ďbiggerí than humanity, there is no need for people to worry
about the end of the world. Even if the world did end tomorrow, for instance,
God would have a larger plan for a continuing world that might incorporate more
than what humans are aware of in this earthly world. Suchocki presents a fresh
way to understand the end of the world and its relationship to Godís purpose
for humanity while tracing the historical roots of her proposal.

In Suchockiís view, the world is in a process of becoming.
It is never finished, and it never will be finished. God does not have an end in
mind, and God does not dictate the actions of humans in this world. Instead, God
lures people to a set of possibilities, while humans maintain their free will.
In this scenario, people should not fear the end of the world, for the world
will never come to a conclusion! Instead, people should strive to make Godís
divine plan a reality for themselves; people should view their time in this
world as their contribution to Godís plan which includes more than what we
see, hear, and do as human beings on this earth.

The reality of time is of great significance in this
scenario. For instance, the average human experiences approximately seventy
years of life on earth. If God is responsible for the end for the eschaton and
it comes within an individualís precious seventy years, then of course that
person will feel as if he/she is directly involved with the event Ė that
his/her life has meaning in light of the event. However, if the average person
has no reason to think that the end of the world will occur within his/her
lifetime, then it is difficult to impress upon him/her the importance of Godís
role in his/her life. In both situations, people can be easily overwhelmed by
the time frame attached to the eschaton. If the end of the world is to come in
the near future, then humanityís purpose is questioned just as if the end
times are unknown. Moreover, if existence is merely a Ďblip on the screení
as some contend, then it is no wonder that thoughts about the eschaton are
overwhelming. If our individual lives have little influence on the rest of
existence, then why are we so consumed by thoughts of our possible
non-existence?

Suchockiís idea of there being no end to the world might
prove to be helpful. Instead of fearing the final days of life as humans know it
or constantly questioning oneís purpose in a life that seems to have an end
far off in the future, Suchockiís thesis that there is no end but rather a
continued process of becoming is comforting. In this understanding of the
eschaton, one can be confident that although he/she might be unaware of Godís
plan for the world, the individualís life is a necessary portion of the entire
process. The individual is but a dot on a line that extends forever in both
directions. Or maybe the individualís life is a single point on the surface of
a sphere that is constantly enlarging; as the sphere increases its surface area,
the individualís contribution to its overall composition is no less
significant than when the sphere was small enough to fit into oneís hand. In
each of these illustrations, it is neither the shape nor the makeup of the image
that is important but the realization that in a world without an end, all things
are important.

Of course, some might respond that the opposite could be
true; in a world with no end, nothing is important. This is a logical
refutation of Suchockiís claim, but it does not work in terms of process
eschatology. If it is accepted that God exists and that God knows all
possibilities while luring humanity to the best of all possibilities, then it
follows that there is a reason for Godís luring of humanity in a particular
direction. On a more basic level, if nothing were important, then as humans we
would not feel the dynamic changes to the earth when natural disasters strike,
for such destruction would not be important. If nothing were important, then
humans would feel no sense of obligation to each other or to the surrounding
world. Suchocki argues that all things are important and that only God truly
understands why this is the case. As humans, we are limited in our understanding
of each other, the world, and ourselves. The only way to better understand is to
trust in Godís overall plan for the world Ė not the world as we know it Ė
simply the world.

If everything in life is important, why then, are movies that
promote a meaningless end to the world (like Armageddon) so popular? The
answer is simple. Even in light of Suchockiís theology of eschatology, there
is room for imagination, for questioning, and for fear. These three things are
at the root of many peopleís musings about the eschaton. It is not that
Suchocki wants for people to stop thinking about a possible end to the
world Ė denying people of their desire to explore the boundless ways for this
world to come to an end would be futile. Instead, Suchocki would suggest that
movies like Armageddon be approached as yet another portion of Godís
vision for us. Movies can foster hope within people, yet they can also breed
frustration. In Armageddon, both options are possible; some come away
thinking that the end of the world is no more than an unavoidable cosmic event,
while others are lured back to God to find their answers. Both scenarios can fit
into Suchockiís theology, where the point is not to know the end or
even attempt to be certain of the end but to live in the present,
trusting that the ultimate order of life is much larger than one thinks
initially.

Many individuals, no matter what their background, cannot
help from thinking of eschatology in cosmic terms. Human beings often have less
trouble considering the end of their own lives than conceiving of the end of the
world. In our highly individualized societies, this comes as no surprise. Many
of us have experienced the loss of a family member or friend, but (obviously)
none of us has a clear understanding of what it will be like to lose this world.
There is a personal connection to questions of eschatology that cannot be
avoided. Suchocki, in her process model, does not suggest that people ignore
these tendencies to cosmic eschatology but instead urges people to broaden their
thoughts Ė to accept that ambiguity that accompanies eschatological thoughts.
In other words, Suchocki would agree that thinking about the world without
ourselves in it is easier than thinking of our world not existing. However,
Suchocki would then challenge us to think beyond the limitations of this world.
She would concentrate on seeing this world as only a small portion of what
actually is a part of Godís realm. In other words, simply because we do not
know of something on earth does not mean that it does not exist.

For many people, this is less than comforting. The question
arises, "Why canít we know of all that is out there? If science
tells us so much, then why canít we explain God and the end of the
world?" Suchockiís response might be, "Why would one want to
explain such things?" It is through the unknowing of this world that God
works in such amazing ways. If people were to know precisely when and how the
world would end, then their purpose might be questioned. This knowing of
when the world the world will end, of course, is not the case; we do not
know when the world will end, and even if we gain an idea of when the world will
end, the timing is so beyond our comprehension that it becomes difficult to
respond to.

Finally, if Suchockiís understanding of eschatology is
anywhere near the mark, one must think of it in light of church traditions.
Consider the doxology, for one. The traditional words are as follows:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy
Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be,
World without end, Amen. Amen.

If Suchockiís notion of a world without end is correct, new
light is shed on the meaning of the doxology. "World without end" then
truly means a world without an end. The ramifications of this are astounding.
The doxology becomes a statement of eternity, a statement that does not suggest
human involvement in the end of the world but does not deny it either. The
doxology emphasizes the role of the Triune God and the world without end that is
the cosmic Ďprojectí of such a divine presence. Clearly, if one chooses to
accept Suchockiís notion of a world without an end, it is crucial for that
person to realize the affects of such a thought on traditional Christianity.

Final Thought

In this study, we have explored two divergent Christian views
of the eschaton. JŁrgen Moltmann and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki offer two
plausible understandings of eschatology and Godís telos. The film Armageddon
served as the catalyst for this theological analysis, as popular culture often
does. Although Moltmann and Suchocki do not agree, their views of eschatology
represent a cross-section of Christian reflection on the subject. It is probable
that the work of these two theologians will result in extensive conversations
surrounding eschatology. It is also probable that films like Armageddon
will continue to fascinate and engage audiences worldwide. It is our hope that
this theological analysis, which combined popular culture and two leading
theologies, will stimulate further discussion surrounding eschatology.

Moltmann, Jurgen. "The World in God or God in the World?" In God
Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of JŁrgen Moltmann." Bauckham,
Richard, ed. 1999. Edinburgh:T&T Clark.

Stoeger, William R., S.J. "Scientific Accounts of Ultimate Catastrophes
in Our Life-Bearing Universe." In The End of the World and the Ends of
God: Science and Theology on Eschatology. Polkinghorne, John and Welker,
Michael, ed. 2000. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press.

Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt. 1988. The End of Evil. Albany: State
University of New York Press.